Arraignment Of A Person During A Criminal Trial: A Reflection On The Latest Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment[1], has reiterated the power of a trial court to arraign a person not named as an accused in the First Information Report (“FIR”) or a person named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet in the criminal trial. The discretionary power of a trial court under Section 319[2] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) to arraign at the stage of trial, a person who is not expressly accused of an offence during the stage of investigation,has been expounded in the judgment.  

Reiterating the power of the trial court under Section 319, the Supreme Court has held that a Court must not act mechanically, merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record which implicates a person sought to be summoned. More importantly, the ‘test’ that the Supreme Court has laid down is that the trial court must record its satisfaction while passing an orderunder Section 319,whichmust be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. This judgment follows the precedent that efforts should be made to ensure a fair trial where the accused and prosecution both get a fair deal.

While the facts leading up to the judgment pertained to a case where the Appellant was summoned by the Special Court for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the present-day implication this judgement may have particularly in light of heightened enforcement activity, is likely to be of more relevance. 

Will the prosecution now have greater latitude to seek arraignment of a person who was not originally named as an accused in the FIR or was not the subject of the investigation, during a trial? This question especially assumes significance post the above judgment, and the answer lies with trial courts and their application of the test laid down by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, a higher threshold has been fixed which requires stronger evidence than mere probability of a person’s complicity in the offence alleged. In this regard, the Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh[4] where it was held that in determining whether a prima facie case is made out, the degree of satisfaction under Section 319 is stricter in comparison to the stage when cognizance is taken. In the judgment, the Supreme Court was careful not to delve into substantive factual submissions made by the Appellant that in its view could hinder a fair trial and restricted its consideration to only consider whether evidence before the Special Court was sufficient to justify the order passed by the Special Court to summon the person at the stage of trial. 

As regards the practical implications, the judgment strengthens the position that any person who may be connected with the offence, which has been investigated and proceeds to trial, may become arraigned as an accused much after the stage of investigation, albeit subject to the satisfaction of the test that has been laid down. Merely because an investigation concludes without explicitly naming a person does not insulate that person (if so involved, for which evidence is produced before the trial court) from being arraigned in the criminal trial. Another aspect which can become relevant for consideration for a person arraigned under Section 319 is in cases involving scheduled offences which attract special statues such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), it can be expected that an order under Section 319 will potentially attract provisions of the PMLA independently against such arraigned person.

In conclusion, the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC to arraign a person at the stage of trial therefore depends entirely on the correct appreciation by the trial court of the specific facts and evidenceof each case and whether a more than ‘prima facie’ role of such person who is sought to be arraigned can be established. If the test is applied by trial courts in letter and spirit, it can be argued that there is sufficient safeguard to ensure the provision is not enlarged beyond the intention of the legislature. 

***

[1] Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022. 

[2] Section 319(2) further provides that where a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned and that any person attending the Court may also be detained for the purpose of the inquiry or trial.

[3] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374. 

[4] Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92.

Authors:

Ankoosh Mehta, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas

Srinivas Chatti, Principal Associate, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas

Darshan Patankar, Associate, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas